Wow didn't think I'd find a review like this one on the internet .. This is basically what I've been thinking most of the time while playing it ! It's just so sinister . I mean GTA 4 wasn't very lighthearted either, but GTA 5 is different .. I guess soulless is the word I'm looking for . Noone really has any believable emotional bonds to anyone else . Come to think of it Max Payne 3 had a very bleak and depressing feel to it aswell . Almost makes me think Dan Houser might be going through some rough times and it influences his writing or something
Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you focused on the context of his review, you would get it. Usually, characters can often reflect the feelings of a players about a certain subject, and usually, having a lot of alignment between the character and the player can forge a stronger immersion effect.Maiev Shadowsong said:
Its hard to feel immersed with a nonredeemable scumbag, if you don't align with their joys and sorrows, understand? In the situations that you can't exactly feel aligned, having a understandable motive for all plot points is helpful too. For example-If you are a good person, playing a man that does horrible deeds for the sake of his children. Some people can identify, or at least respect, family love and loyalty.
A generally good person watching evil things in plots happening due to "Just because" can wear on a person, particularly if the actions are a direct affront upon their moral code.
Why do characters need a set of principles or motives beyond money? This is a video game, an alternate reality, it shouldn't necessarily be an example of what people should do, we should have more games exploring characters who are simply evil by nature.
![[Kira Must Die]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/68/68539.jpg?1620622912){kind=avatar}
Um... isn't that the point of the game? Hell, hasn't that been the point of every GTA game? Throughout the series you play as guys who go around constantly killing people and performing terrible deeds. Really the characters here aren't any worse than the characters in the other games. If you're going into this game expecting the characters to be good people, then you seriously need to get your priorities straight. Not every protagonist has to necessarily be a good person, just like how not every antagonist has to be absolute evil. When it comes to storytelling there really isn't any boundaries on what can be told. I think characters like the ones in this game are worth exploring and looking into. I also found them all to be 3-dimensional, interesting characters.
Having played both the missions that Greg took offence to, I can't say that I agree. From my play through, it's obvious that Michael is bound by things other than greed for why he does things. Also the torture scene was very difficult to play through, and I think thats WHY it was included...it backs up Trevor's exposition on the evils of torture later on.
So far, I'm loving the writing, and the dialog is some of the best i've seen in GTA.
So far, I'm loving the writing, and the dialog is some of the best i've seen in GTA.
I don't really watch "video nasties" myself, but do have friends who are fans and also of horror movies. I have been to couple of screenings of the local horror society including Jaws 2 and Slumber Party Massacre 2, but they were more of an event.Therumancer said:
Not that I would watch "torture porn" movies like Saw/Hostel/Wolf Creek or a Serbian Film myself either.
If they made the torture parts of GTA V skippable I would consider playing it. I did not play the assassin missions in Skyrim as I did not want to and the game left the choice open to you.
So you'd rather have anti-hero's that give the player some false justification for their horrible acts?
Maybe Rockstar is making their characters pure evil so there is some more weight to your decision. Maybe they made the story this way so you couldn't run away from your violent actions by saying "but he is doing it for a good reason!".
Because honestly, there is not a single GTA game where the protagonist has a good enough reason for the mindless violence that you are allowed to commit.
This critique of Grand Theft Auto does not make any sense.
Maybe Rockstar is making their characters pure evil so there is some more weight to your decision. Maybe they made the story this way so you couldn't run away from your violent actions by saying "but he is doing it for a good reason!".
Because honestly, there is not a single GTA game where the protagonist has a good enough reason for the mindless violence that you are allowed to commit.
This critique of Grand Theft Auto does not make any sense.
Exactly! This is a false reality, a game. It is fiction. Sometimes stories are told about evil people that do bad things for bad reasons. If we don't allow stories to encapsulate both ends of the moral spectrum then we are doing a disservice to art and culture.[Kira Must Die said:
I don't mind the scoring at all. He has a point, and has thus illustrated it. I don't have to agree with him.
For those of you who remember back to 2010, the Escapist used to just do written/video reviews and did not give "scores". With no numeric score attached to this review I think some of the negative knee-jerk reactions wouldn't have been so bad, because Tito's main complaints are legitimate explanations of his perspective and experience and you can't tell him he's wrong about what his experience was like.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/7149-What-Our-Review-Scores-Mean
Based on the Escapist's review score scale, a 3.5 is between average and outstanding. I think that it would be untrue for Tito to have given GTAV a 5, because that would mean it was not just a great game but that "the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable". His beef with the story and characters is one that would preclude a 5. Maybe you could argue that he went overboard with the 3.5 rating and that a 4 would be more deserved. But if you actually listen to what he said, he pointed out all the good parts, and was specific about what he didn't like. If you're OK with all that stuff then to YOU it may be a 5, but it's not to him.
For me I'm not sure what's so ground-breaking about GTAV. It looks like more of the same thing we've had since Vice City - it looks more like a new coat of paint than a new construct.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/7149-What-Our-Review-Scores-Mean
Based on the Escapist's review score scale, a 3.5 is between average and outstanding. I think that it would be untrue for Tito to have given GTAV a 5, because that would mean it was not just a great game but that "the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable". His beef with the story and characters is one that would preclude a 5. Maybe you could argue that he went overboard with the 3.5 rating and that a 4 would be more deserved. But if you actually listen to what he said, he pointed out all the good parts, and was specific about what he didn't like. If you're OK with all that stuff then to YOU it may be a 5, but it's not to him.
For me I'm not sure what's so ground-breaking about GTAV. It looks like more of the same thing we've had since Vice City - it looks more like a new coat of paint than a new construct.
The only things i hated were:-
1. Franklin talking to his "homies", did we really need them to say "nigga" "dog" or "homie" every other word in a sentence?
2. Should have been more heists, even just a variety of jewel shops, bank robberies etc. There was only around 4 or 5 heists, and you only make money from the last one and the 1st job most of it goes to paying off another mafia guy.
3. A lot of the business are pointless to buy, most just give you more jobs to do like taxi driving or car crushing. Fact there isnt much money (until the end) it doesnt make it worth investing in them. Like with car crushing, you would have to crush over a hundred cars just to cover the cost of buying the place.
4. Police - why are the police so annoying in GTA games? They get psychotic at times. If you change cars and there are no police to see you, that should work. If you buy new clothes without the police seeing you walk into a shop - that should count in lessening the star count against you. You can be completly hidden and the police still find you just because you were caught in their cone of vision. Even if you are under the free way. How can they see you?
Would give the game a 4 out of 5. There are issues, but those dont stop it from being a brilliant game and a great experience. Maybe there will be DLC to add more heists. That in itself would make the game 5/5 for me.
1. Franklin talking to his "homies", did we really need them to say "nigga" "dog" or "homie" every other word in a sentence?
2. Should have been more heists, even just a variety of jewel shops, bank robberies etc. There was only around 4 or 5 heists, and you only make money from the last one and the 1st job most of it goes to paying off another mafia guy.
3. A lot of the business are pointless to buy, most just give you more jobs to do like taxi driving or car crushing. Fact there isnt much money (until the end) it doesnt make it worth investing in them. Like with car crushing, you would have to crush over a hundred cars just to cover the cost of buying the place.
4. Police - why are the police so annoying in GTA games? They get psychotic at times. If you change cars and there are no police to see you, that should work. If you buy new clothes without the police seeing you walk into a shop - that should count in lessening the star count against you. You can be completly hidden and the police still find you just because you were caught in their cone of vision. Even if you are under the free way. How can they see you?
Would give the game a 4 out of 5. There are issues, but those dont stop it from being a brilliant game and a great experience. Maybe there will be DLC to add more heists. That in itself would make the game 5/5 for me.
You cited Godfather part 2 as a story in which the main character's actions are so far from the norm that they're unwatchable. Another example of this would be Breaking Bad.
I think you should consider the idea that as more and more anti-heroes have pushed the sociological boundaries of narratives, it's become less necessary for the audience to root for the character's, or to be able to root for them.
Just look at Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. How about Citizen Kane? Being confused as to who to root for adds moral complexity to a story.
Where Gta V has a lot of narrative novelties you're overlooking. It may not have nailed it, satirically, but the way it goes about satirizing is really interesting.
I think you should consider the idea that as more and more anti-heroes have pushed the sociological boundaries of narratives, it's become less necessary for the audience to root for the character's, or to be able to root for them.
Just look at Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. How about Citizen Kane? Being confused as to who to root for adds moral complexity to a story.
Where Gta V has a lot of narrative novelties you're overlooking. It may not have nailed it, satirically, but the way it goes about satirizing is really interesting.
I had been hearing about this review of GTA V. This is my first time going through it just to see what the fuss is about. If the review is to be believed (I've never played any of the GTA series and have no inclination to start), it sounds like GTA V is a well-executed from the point of view of just being a compilation of coded software. However, from the point of view of being a coherent, sensible creative work, it's a complete dismal failure with no real purpose to its existence. That's the impression that I'm getting.
Although, as I said, I've never played any of the GTA games and have no inclination; so, take my opinion with some significant salt.
Although, as I said, I've never played any of the GTA games and have no inclination; so, take my opinion with some significant salt.
Seems like Rockstar were trying to address the dissonance people complained about in IV, how Nico would bemoan killing one minute then be laying waste to the city the next minute. By making the protagonists "scumbags," that issue evaporates. I think it was a smart choice on Rockstar's behalf. And yeah there's low brow humor, but that's always kind of been GTA's thing. I liken it to South Park, sharp satire of contemporary America interspersed with toilet humor.
I hated playing as Trevor and found Franklin to be a bit dull, but I loved playing as Michael and thought he was anything but just a generic scumbag. If Mr. Tito wants to always play a white knight, I suggest he stick to Skyrim (or the "perfect" Dragon Age 2).
No Mr.Tito, every other GTA game does not offer you a choice in every situation or some sense of nobility. In VC you kill cops (not dirty cops mind you) for no reason other than you need the uniforms.Greg Tito said:
GTA 5 "makes you do terrible things" but never for no reason. As I pointed out before, your "life invader" example was taken out of context and showed that your either choosing to misrepresent that scene or you skipped the cutscenes that explained why you are doing the hits.
If you don't like the game, fine, give it a bad review, but at least be professional. Don't make dishonest claims about the game and don't spend an entire review whining and then give it a high score. It shows that you care more about how people see your review than the quality or helpfulness of the review itself.
If your written review was truly your opinion on the game (even though many of your claims are demonstrably false) then give the game a low score. This "give it a high score but do nothing but complain during the actual review" is the kind of thing I expect from gamefaqs user reviews, not escapist reviews that people are payed to produce.
I know I may seem harsh, I have loved poking fun at you guys over this whole thing (and the Escapists staff childish reaction and constant use of the "people just mad because it didn't get a perfect score" strawman argument) but I honestly believe that when you are being payed to play video games and write short articles that should take you no longer than an hour to write, you should show some level of professionalism or at least quality.
This is kind of how your review seemed to me.
"Burnout Revenge
The game was repulsive and forced the player to drive dangerously to complete the game without offering a valid reason. On top of this, everything in the game is green and I'm so sick of green since I have a family and I found it hard to look at it. Literally everything in the game is green or some shade of green. I can't think of a single positive thing to say about this game, and I have barely gotten into the actual gameplay.
4 out of 5 stars"
No, people are not "mad because of the score" because as people keep saying, it's a high score. People are annoyed because of the complete misrepresentation of the game and how those falsities are now constantly quoted by people that have never played the game as a reason that it's a terrible game.
There are plenty of real reasons to dislike the game, why rely on problems that don't even exist in the game? You keep saying you were forced to do horrible things without an explanation, that's simply not true unless you chose to skip the cutscenes. I'm sorry, but it's not the game's fault that you skipped cutscenes. That's the kind of "review" I remember seeing on "judgement day" on G4 back in the day.
The "I have a family now, I don't enjoy this" stuff was really obnoxious. You are implying (almost explicitly stating) that the only people that would enjoy this game are kids or losers without a significant other in their life.
And this is what bugs me, people that never played the game taking this review on faith.geizr said:
Fact is, it is his opinion and he is welcome to it but he states things that as I have said before are demonstrably false.
Every "horrible act" is given context and Tito completely ignores the fact that the torture scenes was quite obviously meant to be disturbing. That's what really gets me annoyed, people single this game out as "glorifying torture" because they had the reaction that was intended by the devs but not a single one of those people complained about torture in Splinter cell or COD because the game doesn't make it disturbing because those games are trying to present torture as a noble and necessary act of a hero.
It makes me genuinely sad that people like this admit to not playing the game but post their opinion of how much of a failure the story is based on nothing more than this review which completely misrepresents the game.
Calm down. First, at the very end of my post, I did say to take my opinion with a significant amount of salt, meaning one should not place a lot of weight on it, since I have never played the game. Second, I said it was my impression of the review, meaning I'm only stating what my interpretation of the review is, not whether I believe the review. In fact, I clearly state "If the review is to believed...", meaning if you do believe the review, not saying specifically whether I do or whether others should. Third, if someone has not played the game, what else are they going to have to go by except the opinions of others who have played the game (the reviewer counts as one having played the game, since he must do so to review the game)? Some such opinions are going to be positive and others are going to be negative. Regardless, I'm certainly not going to go out and drop $60 just to verify and validate the review. Sure, I could rent the game on Gamefly or elsewhere, but then I have to spend time going through it, time that could be spent on other games or other activities. If the game is not piquing my interest, regardless of the review (which, by the way, I clearly stated), why would I want to invest in it in any way just to verify a review?Carpenter said:
You play the game and enjoy it. That's great; continue on with that, and don't give a flying wet-noodle what anyone else thinks on it. You should not let other's opinion of a game you enjoy take away from your ability to enjoy the game; otherwise, it means, deep down, you're not as comfortable with your game selection as you would like to believe and need external affirmation to justify yourself. You're not being comfortable in your own skin. Some people will like the game, and some people will hate the game; however, both sides will report their opinion based on such. Just because you like a game does not mean everyone else has to, as well.
As an example, I positively enjoyed Final Fantasy XIII, have played completely through it three times now (80+ hours worth each time). Yet, try to find a favorable opinion of the game on the Internet. You may find some, but you'll find a lot of negative. But, those negative opinions do not matter one iota to my enjoyment of the game.
If you feel the need to discuss this, can you at least be mature about it?geizr said:
Starting with "calm down" (implying that I was angry or excited) is a pretty overused troll tactic. Not saying you are a troll, I only bring it up because it's just presumptuous and rude.
Did you read my post? You are asking questions that I already answered with my comments earlier. Yes if you have never played the game all you have to go on is the opinions of others, that's why it bugs me when people that are payed to play video games and give their opinions make claims about a game that are demonstrably false. It would be no different than reviewing Fable and claiming that it delivered on every single promise made in development. It's misleading and unprofessional.
You are asking why you would want to buy the game if you have no interest in it. I don't know, why would you? Why are you asking me that? I never suggested you buy the game if you have no interest. On that note, if you have absolutely no interest, why are you here sharing your opinion on the game you have not played?
Yes I enjoy the game, if you think this is me complaining about an opinion I don't agree with then maybe you just skimmed my comment. This is about a person being given money to review a game and then making claims that are demonstrably false. The things he claims are not matters of opinion, such as his claim that the Life invader mission is given no context and no reason and that you are not told what you are doing until it happens. Every one of those claims is false.
I could just as easily say that if you are not interested in the game you shouldn't care what my opinion of the review is. You are here presenting your opinion, accept that I am doing the same.
The opinions of others is not detracting from my enjoyment of the game, your comments seem pretty in line with the community's behavior right now in defending the escapist, constant strawman arguments. I am not claiming that everyone or anyone has to enjoy a game I enjoy, as I have made clear several times this is about a person who is payed to review a game making false claims about that game.
Yes, you did sound quite angry to me, especially with the opening line about how it bugs you so much and much of your follow-on text sounded like a response in irritation. You quite explicitly included me in a group that is a source of your current irritation, therefore, it seemed quite reasonable to me to presume you were angry in your post. It is not rude or presumptuous if the person responding has reason to believe that you may be a bit peeved over the issue. Trying to imply that I'm a troll doesn't help. Saying that someone is doing something is indicative of them being X but you're not calling them X is a bit cowardly, in my opinion. Either you believe I'm being a troll or not. If you believe I'm being a troll, then just say so, but if you don't actually believe I'm being a troll, then please don't use phrasing that sounds like an indirect accusation (and, yes, I'm actually a bit irritated by this). Further, just because someone doesn't have agreement with you or make counterpoints against your post doesn't mean that they are engaging in trollish behavior. It simply means they disagree.Carpenter said:
Yes, I read your post, the one that quoted me and directly included me as one of a select group that is a source of irritation for you concerning this game.Carpenter said:
Greg Tito is not the only one who has the opinion that the story is pointless and unmotivated. One poster in this forum who has also played the game echoes the same opinion as Greg Tito; this person right here:
So, the claims are not necessarily demonstrably false, and I suspect he is not the only person that holds such an opinion. Just because others don't agree with your opinion doesn't necessarily make them factually wrong.TheMoD1234 said:
You specifically take exception to someone reciting the opinion of another, specifically a game reviewer, when the person reciting the review has not themselves played the game. In that sense, you are asking the person reciting the review to play the game first before they are allowed to weigh in on the game. I did not recite the review but offered my interpretation of the review. I predicated that interpretation with "If the review is to be believed..." in an attempt to show that I was not taking a stance one way or the other on the veracity of the review. I admit that this may not have been sufficient to impress that onto the reader; never the less, that was the intent.Carpenter said:
No, I did not skim your post. It sounded quite clear that you did not agree with the review, and you do not agree with someone giving an interpretation of the review. In fact, the very statement from you that I have quoted above is a disagreement.Carpenter said:
I don't care what your opinion of the review is. I care that you included me as belonging to a group that is causing you irritation. Further, you included me in that group on the basis of what I perceived as a misunderstanding of the nature and intent of my post. I responded to your opinion to clarify to you the nature and intent of my post so as not to be included in such group. Even further, the only reason I'm responding now is because in the very beginning of your last post you make what I perceive as a back-hand accusation to call me a troll.Carpenter said:
Yet, you seem quite bothered by these "false claims", as you call them, concerning the game and seeing the need to defend the game from them.Carpenter said:
There is no way I can argue with you on the veracity of any claims one way or the other, either yours or Greg Tito's, as I have not played the game myself. I did not take Greg Tito's review on faith because I know better than just go by the word of a single reviewer (goodness knows if I did that with Yahtzee's reviews, I'd probably never play a single game ever again). But, that is not the intent of what I was trying to do in my post. In my post, I was only trying to present my own interpretation and distillation of Greg's review in an effect to understand the conflict people were having, nothing more, nothing less. If you have a problem with his review, that's fine, but don't include me as one who is taking the review on faith that it is the gospel truth concerning the game and thus being one contributing to your irritation. Also, I don't like being called a troll, not even indirectly or with language that has partial implications to the effect. (BTW, if this all sounds angry to you, it's because I actually am, to a small degree.)